#found family being considered a queer trope is extremely real in its own way but I think. I Know it also extends to autism

[soullessjack]

was wondering how funny it is that some of my favorite characters have this parallel of being extremely, undoubtedly weird yet still being loved and accepted and understood by others around them that just resonates so hard with me for some iNeXpliCabLE reason and then i remembered that im autistic

[filmmakerdreamst]

‘Boy Meets World’ Re-watch (as an Adult)

‘Girl Meets World’ doesn’t count as a sequel. Not because of the writing/tonal choices but because in the original show - despite continuity issues - the characters felt like real people e.g. the way they spoke/acted/dressed was the way people behaved in the 90s where as in the spin off, they were Disney characters e.g. hyper versions of themselves especially Cory and Eric. And the transition between both shows didn’t come naturally. It’s not an objectivity badly written show but it was pretty much a re-do of the old show with the same storylines/tropes without continuing the story. (I say the same thing about ‘The Incredibles’. vs ‘Incredibles 2’.) Also there were too many cooks in the kitchen pushing one way or another. You could see Micheal Jacobs style, all the aspects were there, but he was also creating a ‘DISNEY’ show at the same time. I don’t know about you but the one message I took from the original show was ‘finding out that life cannot be packenged into a lovely little present ’ which kind of contradicts everything that the new show is. If anything GMW is an AU universe (and it really felt like that, rewatching it right after BMW e.g. it felt flipped) almost like Disney’s version of ‘what happened next?’ The primal difference between both shows is BMW is portraying what is real and GMW is based on what is real.

Going off my point, I will however be always thankful that it exists because I probably wouldn’t of found out about ‘Boy Meets World’ otherwise. Although saying that, I never thought that the original show needed a continuation of any kind (a lot of things make sense about the spin off if you acknowledge that Disney requested it - I think it would of been much better off on its original platform) ‘Boy Meets World’ was very much a product of its time i.e. when tv shows were still relevetivley new and had no rules - like there is stuff in there that not even adult shows today have. Plus there was something about it that felt very personal (such as the characters and setting) as if the creator based it on his own childhood growing up and I think that was part of its charm and why it had such a big effect on pop culture - I’m not so sure you can repeat that.

BMW is big on meta I’ll tell you that. I love how it’s so aware of itself. The amount of depth that it has never ceases to amaze me. It’s whole universe is so dense and huge. Every quote/storyline is so unique it sticks in your brain forever. (I swear the humour got more and more deranged every season). The show was also incredibly queer and progressive.  It didn’t give a crap about sexuality. Much more than I remember. Proof to never use ‘but it was made in the 90s’ excuse.        

I loved how the show kept reinventing itself every season as Cory grew up so you really felt you were growing up with him and all the characters. The Character Development on this show was so natural/authentic. Every single character got a chance to shine. No one changed their look in one episode and no one had an intervention every time someone had an identity crisis (GMW) My favourite development was Shawn Hunter. He went from a cool kid to a ladies man to a poetic soul. It was so satisfying to watch.

I realised that Cory Matthews is actually my favourite character (before it was Eric or Shawn) I already have a special soft spot for ‘annoying’ characters because they tend to be the most memorable/real. For example, Karma Ashcroft from ‘Faking it’ was my babe while everyone was hating on her. I really related to his anxiety/self hatred about being average and I loved that he constantly made mistakes. It was very refreshing. He’s also incredibly queer-coded. I found that alot of his mannerisms make sense if you see him with extreme compulsory heterosexuality (because identity’s such as bisexual or gay couldn’t exist normally in the 90s) There are moments in the show where he literally mimics his best friend’s behaviour around girls e.g. when the class pretty much gets brainwashed by the sex ed video in ‘Boy Meets Girl’ Shawn gets asked out by a girl, making Cory jealous - which pushes him to ask out Topanga.

It’s funny how a few years of life experience can change perspectives completely because when I was sixteen (aka the same age as Cory and Topanga) watching BMW for the first time, I was mad at Amy for ‘not understanding that they were in love’ (in ‘A Walk to Pittsburg’) but now that I’m older I’m actually agreeing with her. Yeah, what do they know about love? Because all season long they were acting quite superficially.

Cory and Topanga became somewhat of a toxic couple in seasons 5 -7. Reminded me of my parents relationship because my mum gave up her chosen university to be closer to my dad and they aren’t together any more. Topanga’s love for Cory was very conditional and Cory cheated on her multiple times/openly begged for sex  (Again like my parents) And you should never be in a relationship with someone who makes you say “You make me think not so very much of myself” There are arguably much more signs of emotional abuse than love in their relationship especially from Topanga’s side. Plus their story was altered so many times to give it more basis (they retconned Shawn and Cory’s friendship to do this) I could write an essay on how Kevin and Winnie’s love story on ‘The Wonder Years’ is much more believable because it actually addresses how toxic it was and they grow apart in the end. If GMW was a realistic continuation, they would be divorced with a little girl - leave them in the 90s where they belong.

Alan and Amy were couple goals! Cory and Topanga wish that they could have what they have. Literally the definition of ‘a healthy relationship on tv that keeps thriving and over coming obstacles without big drama’. Best TV parents ever.

I loved the Matthews family; how they all had individual arcs and developments of their own. One of my favourite arcs was in season 5, when Eric and Cory were both jealous of what they ‘didn’t have’ with their dad, so Alan made an effort to give them both that they needed. Honestly, I had never seen so much healthy communication on TV before. Alan is the best father around. His whole personal arc of giving up managing a supermarket because he wasn’t passsionate about it anymore and buying a mountain store was so inspired. I found it funny that the family had more of a relationship with Shawn than Topanga.

Shawn Hunter never caught a break. It got a bit tiring. He was never allowed to be happy for five minutes. Every time he laughed or smiled, 5 years were added onto my lifespan. Why didn’t Johnathan Turner adopt him? I loved their dynamic. Why did he let him go back to his abusive father who just dumped him anyway?

Jack and Shawn’s complicated dynamic was possibly the most unique/interesting arc of the entire show and no one talks about it. I don’t care what y’all say - despite them being very different, Jack was the only one who fully took care of Shawn without second thoughts (Turner and the Matthews family had doubts)

I liked Shawn and Angela. I thought they were much better suited than Cory and Topanga. I honestly wouldn’t of minded if they ended up together even though I always had a feeling they wouldn’t. (Like I’m glad she went with her dad in the end) And considering how important they were as a interracial couple in the 90s, GMW handled that very poorly.

Shawn and Cory should of ended up together. And before you come at me with ‘it’s important to have m/m friendships without toxic masculinity’ (which is an important arguement to have) - yeah no shit there’s an entire Industry based around that/pitting women against each other. While it is important to have those friendships between men that are close and even intimate (take Chandler and Joey, Schmidt and Nick, Isak and Jonas and Jake and Charles for example) there was also another layer to their relationship which the narrative played off sometimes as them “going out” or “in love”.  I actually recently found out that a writer - who came into the show in season 3 - confirmed that she wrote gay undertones into their relationship on purpose ‘In my opinion as a writer, they thought they were “straight”, they both didn’t realise or understand their feelings for eachother’ but couldn’t deliever because the producers wanted to keep the show “kid friendly”. Kind of like Xena and Gabby. I know people prefer Jack & Eric (I love them as well) but everything got ruined for me as soon as they introduced the ‘love triangle’ and I always tend to prefer emotional tension over sexual. They were just so unconditional with each other/ their friendship was so good and healthy and now I’m so bitter that it never happened.

I never understood why Shawn and Cory had to stop being best friends after he got married. He’s not Topanga’s property. I always hated how Topanga tried to interrupt/interfere with their dynamic — although now I realise it was because the two of them purposely left her out. Looking back at it, If it really was just a intimate friendship then why would she get so easily jealous if she didn’t sense there was something else deeper going on? You should never marry someone who puts you second.

I didn’t like Topanga when she was with Cory (or vice versa) Especially after they got married. She was a great character on her own. Feminist before her time. Hermione Granger before her time. I always felt she deserved a lot better than him in a way e.g. if someone I considered a friend speard a rumour around high school that we slept together - I would never speak to that person again. SHE SHOULD OF GONE TO YALE GOD DAMN IT. And as someone pointed out the other day, if the roles were reversed some of the stuff she does or says to Cory would be considered domestic violence. ‘She’s always blaming Cory on shit that isn't even his fault or makes him feel bad or shuts down his emotions and turns it around so he's comforting her instead.’ There was even a moment in GMW (not that I consider that show a continuation) where she locks him out the house for a few days after he insulted her chicken, and his son Auggie had to bring him spaghetti. If Cory was a woman, that would not be played off as a joke - that would be considered abuse. They were however a better couple in GMW ironically.

Angela Moore is now one of my favourite characters on BMW. She was beautiful. Her friendship with Rachel (and Topanga) was the best. And I frickin’ loved her and Cory’s friendship development - when they could of easily not played into that. I hate that she got villiaized in GMW.

My favourite seasons are 4, 5 & 1. My least favourites are 3 & 2 & 7. And even then the show was still pretty darn good.

The back and fourth clash between Turner and Mr Feeny in season 2 was very entertaining.

Mr Feeny and Eric are my favourite relationship on ‘Boy Meets World’. I love how Eric was the only person that Feeny directly told that he loved him. Also, why didn’t Eric become the new Mr Feeny? He showed more traits of becoming a teacher in the show than Cory did.

Eric and Tommy was probably the most heartbreaking plot line in season 6. (That season was an emotional train wreck) I cried for a fourth time. The world doesn’t deserve him.

I loved the development of Shawn and Topanga’s friendship. Even though there was a silent competition over Cory, they eventually became good friends. I found out that the song ‘She will be loved’ was inspired by them which is awesome but it’s also proof that people ship for less if it’s an m/f dynamic - just sayin’. I however see a more convincing potiental romance with the two of them than Cory and Topanga sometimes.

On Cory and Topanga again - they weren’t a bad couple overall. I liked them in s1 - 3. They had some great moments. But upon my rewatch (getting out of that 90s idealised headspace) I found them to be too similar at times - chafing as another person put it - to the point where they cancel each other out. A lot of people pointed out that Riley and Maya paralleled them and I was thinking “That’s not nesserily a good thing.”

‘Dream. Try. Do good.’ is on my mantelpiece.

[yeoldontknow]

so I watched brief encounter last night because I was curious... I don’t understand what the main character meant by her committing the violence of falling inlove. I don’t think I understand how being in love could be violent- is it because she’s married?

hi anon! ahhhh! im so happy you decided to watch it! and then came to discuss with me pls do you know how delighted that makes me ;^; if youre not used to classic cinema, or even classic melodrama, i can see how the film would be a bit slow or a bit difficult to connect with. so i really appreciate you taking the time to watch and come up with questions for things. when i say this made my day i mean it lmaooo

the quote i believe youre pulling from is this:

I’ve fallen in love. I didn’t think such violent things could happen to ordinary people.

there are several layers to this statement - emotional, moral, political, societal, etc. im happy to break these down contextually so you can have a better understanding of why this statement is painful and, also, why love is an extremely violent experience. going under a cut because...i have this entire masters degree in film and im not using it so im gonna use it here lmao

at its most basic, yes, you are correct. she says love is a violent experience because she is already married. to love, really love, is an act of violence, especially when you are already promised and making a family to another person. there is an element of ruination here that plagues laura, love as a threat to the stability of the home and family. and we can see this when her son is playing in the street and gets into an accident - a completely innocuous event, but one she sees as an omen of her violence against her own family. karma, but at a level that would start a war among her family and community.

in most filmic universes, romantic comedies especially, we are used to the relatively easy expectations that come from learning to love someone - you meet, you flirt, you are both, ideally, free to experience these types of intense emotions, you come together, you separate (due to...any sort of obstacle), you come back together. in this traditional narrative, we are presented with the notion that falling in love happens in a linear fashion and that, once the two characters have ended their arc and achieved their happy ending, there is not much else that occurs. they lived happily ever after, ever after being an indeterminate amount of time in which we are meant to assume they exist within this state, ceaselessly.

in general, there are two types of love stories - tragedies and comedies. where romantic comedies (in the modern sense, and i am stressing modern sense) end with ‘happily ever after,’ the other alternative for lovers is death. you either overcome your initial obstacle, or you perish, in love, where love becomes a death. so where does that leave brief encounter? neither party have been put to death, but the death is of the will, the passion. and, in brief encounter, it is killed by morality. by choice. i will be coming back to this. because passion is an extremely important element of this film, and it carries the narrative from start to finish.

at its core, brief encounter is a melodrama. melodrama has its own sect of film theory, but in this case ill do my best to keep it simple. and its really important to recognize that this film is british - british melodrama are two extremely different experiences and come from two completely different places of expression.

american melodrama, the most broad sense, was a stylistic set of films, usually from the 40s-50s (even some released in the early 60s) which use a lot of the tropes of classic cinematic narrative story telling - but as irony, parody, or pastiche. great examples of these films would be rebel without a cause, mildred pierce, from here to eternity, imitation of life, etc. in all of these films, and again i am paraphrasing because there is so much relating to melodrama as its own theory and practice, there is an onus on emotional expression and sensationalism. the narrative is driven by passionate action, emotional action, and, almost always, the swell of music weve come to recognize in hollywood cinema. music swells with character emotion, thus assisting in informing the audience in how to feel, and so we are ok regardless if these characters are successful in their plight, because we have felt.

british melodrama operates from an entirely different perspective. yes, like their historical theatrical roots, they favor spectacle and avoid realism. and, again, there is a reliance on the music to lead the narrative. however, the focus shifts from the societal body to the familial body; body concrete rather than body politic. culturally, this is a significant change from the usual reserved emotional experience within britain. and that is where brief encounter becomes something extremely important.

brief encounter was released in 1945, in a post-war period when there were significant changes to womens daily and societal lives, and this film really hones in on the causative anxieties that are born from these sudden changes and, yes, sudden notions of emotional liberation from their families - a new found independence. with the context of this film coming off the tails of WWII, in a post-war society in which there is meant to be peace, laura calls the act of falling in love violent which, for an audience member at the time of release, would have immediately associated that element of violence with war time violence. love is a threat. its dangerous. love at this level is repulsive. love is an insurrection - love is a revolution. and it came to her without her permission. she is bereft. she is on the brink of collapse - and ordinary women, the traditional family house wife, is never meant to feel so eager to ruin her family for a sensation that is, inherently, selfish.

so this brings us back to passion. something that comes up quite a lot in brief encounter, most explicitly at the cinema when alec and laura see a trailer for a film called flames of passion (this is a real film btw! and you might be able to watch it - it too is a melodrama. theres also a queer reading within brief encounter, because of the inclusion of flames of passion, but thats for another day). this brings us to the moral question of love as violence. for this, we can turn to hume and his 4 thesis on moral philosophy, the morals that drive humanity. primarily we will look at the following points:

1. reason alone is not enough to motivate the will, but rather is a slave to passion 3. moral distinction is derived from moral sentiment: feelings of approval (praise) and disapproval (shame, blame) through our inter-relations with others, or through the perceptions of others as they perceive us

for hume, the passions are simply emotions, but they are broken down as direct or indirect. desire is a direct emotion and it arises, without thought, from a place of good or evil, pain or pleasure - and it is only after these feelings have arisen that we are able to consider the feeling. by that same token, bodily or carnal appetites, our carnal desires, is another instinct that arises from unknown origin and only is able to be thoughtfully experienced after we have been confronted with it. and that is the most important piece - desire and carnal desire is an instinct. for hume, love, on the other hand, does not directly cause action - because love is not an instinct. love is learned.

in brief encounter, laura is admitting that not only does she thoughtfully love alec - love in a way that would not necessarily cause action, but brings her unparalleled pleasure in comparison to a man who simply helps, but she desires him. desires him enough to take action, to release the shackles of her political body and engage in her carnal body, with an appetite that is almost reductive in theory, aligning her with something base. this pleasure inherently causes her pain, yet still, she craves it - without morality.

and through her perception of those around her - her friends, her acquaintances, her own husband - she distinguishes this moral experience as shameful. but, in that shame, she still does not surrender her carnal body. her apetite is awakened, unable for her to be returned to its normal, thoughtful state. at war, now, with herself and her desires, laura is conflicted and ruined, simply because she learned to love and to desire, a violence an ordinary housewife should never experience.